Rutgers faculty council pushes for school to rescind invitation to Condoleezza Rice

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Jamescmeyer Midwest City, USA, OK
    March 10, 2014 12:17 p.m.

    Mountanman's comment is paramount and often ignored:
    Iraq is free. While their previous regime has forced its own people to fight us at threat of losing their and their family's lives, we'v egone in and opened our own selves to danger and injury to preserve them. Iraqi people have since endangered and at time seven sacrificed their own lives, of their own initiative, to preserve that freedom. And never forget the "Arab spring" that arose after.

    The Iraqi war bore honor and its end result is admirable.

    As for questioning a liberal institution in inviting her to speak in the first place; remember that she was the first African-American female secretary of state. If she were a white man, they wouldn't have ever considered it.

  • logicguy TUCSON, AZ
    March 9, 2014 7:36 p.m.

    GaryO: "The Bush administration seemed to be under the delusion that if they repeated a falsehood often enough, it would become true."

    Like the attack on our embassy in Benghazi was really just a reaction to an obscure y-tube video?

  • GaryO Virginia Beach, VA
    March 9, 2014 9:51 a.m.

    Hawkeye79 - intel gathered during the Clinton administration had very little to do with realities during the Bush administration.

    Why would the Bush administration base the iraq invasion on such old, outdated information? . . . unless it suited GW's desire to get Saddam . . . at all COSTS (to the American people and entire world).

    Face it Hawkeye, the Bush administration followed a rash course . . . A course based on polls that showed how a President who took "decisive" action would look good, at least temporarily, in the eyes of the nation.

    The Republican GW Bush administration was incredibly irresponsible, as Modern "Conservative" leaders are prone to be.

    When people around the world started clamoring for war crime charges to be levied against the Bush administration, I disagreed, because I thought the whole affair would be too burdensome to the American people . . . But now, I have reconsidered.

    Perhaps an international war crimes trial with GW and company as defendants is just what this nation's "Conservatives" really need to see so they can realize how "Conservative" their political leaders really are.

  • GaryO Virginia Beach, VA
    March 9, 2014 5:45 a.m.

    Hawkeye79 - GW Bush apologists might as well give up.

    The facts speak for themselves, and the facts are screaming that the Bush White House was unprincipled, reckless, lucrative for the military-industrial complex, and out of touch with reality.

    Yes, I know, the intel provide by the Bush administration justified invading Iraq (just like GW wanted to do anyway) but the intel was FALSE.

  • Hawkeye79 Iowa City, IA
    March 8, 2014 8:48 p.m.

    Hi GaryO,

    You might want to look into what Hillary Clinton had to say about the WMD intel during an interview on Larry King Live. She clearly admitted (in 2004) that the intel was consistent through both the Clinton administration and the Bush administration and was held by several U.S. allies as well.

    You wouldn't try to blame the Bush administration for intel acquired during the Clinton administration, would you?

  • GaryO Virginia Beach, VA
    March 8, 2014 5:45 p.m.

    Mountanman - You're right. "Without a doubt, Hillary would be received with open arms at Rutgers even though she voted FOR both wars!" Finally we agree on something!

    Hillary would be welcome at Rutgers. Why not?

    She, like the rest of us was deceived into believing the Iraqis were preparing to attack us with WMDs.

    That claim originated with the Bush administration. The CIA is part of the executive branch, and it told our Chief Executive EXACTLY what he wanted to hear. The entire administration told GW (the Decider) Bush exactly what he wanted to hear.

    The Bush administration seemed to be under the delusion that if they repeated a falsehood often enough, it would become true. (Conservative politicians operate the same way now.)

    In any case, the Bush administration lacked principles across the board and took us from being a prosperous, peaceful nation, with strong allies to a nation despised by former allies, mired in two wars, and on the brink of financial ruin after having completely destabilized the Middle East.

    What is Condie Rice going to say to new grads anyway?

    . . . You too can devastate America if you apply yourselves?

  • intervention slc, UT
    March 8, 2014 3:21 p.m.

    So has anyone here stopped to think about the fact it's a "liberal" university that nvited Rice in the first place?

  • intervention slc, UT
    March 8, 2014 2:07 p.m.

    Two things strike me
    One the underlying assumption that the professors are liberal
    Two that some how using this incident to paint all liberals the ssme somehow show how much more enlightened and open to other views you are.

    This liberal would really like the chance to her Ms Rice talk and would like even more the chance to sit down and talk with her one on one. Of all the bush administration i find her the most interesting. Even though I disagreed with Bush on many issues I think he would be interesting to talk to one on one away from all the political posturing and rhetoric but again that is just me.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    March 8, 2014 10:24 a.m.

    @ Gary O. Without a doubt, Hillary would be received with open arms at Rutgers even though she voted FOR both wars! We went to war for the same reason we did with Japan and Germany: to free people from murdering tyrants and the little fact that we were attacked. Hypocrisy is rampant among liberals!

  • Alpiner Alpine, UT
    March 8, 2014 9:00 a.m.

    I guess the concept of a University being open to all sorts of viewpoints only applies to those viewpoints that are liberal.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    March 8, 2014 8:38 a.m.

    Free speech is only for liberals! All others need not apply!

  • GaryO Virginia Beach, VA
    March 8, 2014 7:58 a.m.

    RedShirtMIT - It's silly to think that liberals are always "tolerant and accepting of all points of view."

    Were our Liberal founding fathers tolerant of Conservative Monarchists efforts to hold this nation back? Was the Liberal Abe Lincoln tolerant of racist, slave-holding states rightist who tried to tear this nation apart? Was the great Progressive Teddy Roosevelt tolerant of the big oligarchic Capitalists who maintained monopolies and oligopolies that stifled all competition?

    The answers are no, of course not, and NO WAY.

    Why should Liberals in any way be "tolerant" of Reactionaries and Conservatives who have done such harm to this nation?

    Why should a legitimate institution of higher learning want a member of the Bush administration to speak?

    Did you forget about the WMD affair? The Bush administration fooled the American people into thinking the Iraqis had WMD's ready to cause this nation massive harm, and they did so to legitimize attacking a nation that did not attack us first . . . thus leading to years of war, over four THOUSAND dead Americans, over a hundred thousand dead Iraqis, and over a trillion dollars wasted.

    Why should anyone or tolerate or accept that kind of behavior?

  • Empyrean Logan, UT
    March 7, 2014 3:14 p.m.

    The hypocrisy of the ultra-left Rutgers faculty is overwhelming. One of their primary tenants is to advocate tolerance... while they themselves display almost none.
    "We welcome anyone's point of view, as long as it agrees precisely with our own."

    Their excuse that Ms Rice was pro-Iraqi war is laughable, since Hillary Clinton also advocated starting the war with Iraq. It's a fact the faculty seems to have conveniently forgotten... since they would swoon all over themselves in getting Hillary to come and speak.

    Condoleezza Rice was one of the best and most distinguished Secretaries of State our country has had in decades. Rutgers should consider itself fortunate in getting her to come and address the faculty and students. Instead the faculty is giving the students a first-hand lesson on going out into the world after graduation as intolerant bigots. Bigotry against anyone who doesn't agree with yourself is shameful.

    Professor Haim Baruh is right about this stance by their faculty (paraphrased) giving Rutgers a black eye to the rest of the world. If, for no other reason, I now wouldn't consider sending any of my children to Rutgers.

  • RedShirtMIT Cambridge, MA
    March 7, 2014 11:53 a.m.

    Since a majority of college faculty are liberals, doesn't this move reflect poorly on them?

    I have been told by numerous liberals that they are tolerant and accepting of all points of view. By the way the faculty is acting at Rutgers it would appear that they are not tolerant nor do they even like the idea of opposing ideals being expressed on their campus.